Official JTR speaker thread - Page 697 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews > Audio > Speakers > Official JTR speaker thread

Speakers

jbrown15's Avatar jbrown15
06:30 PM Liked: 1397
post #20881 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 7,322
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
This one is funny IMO.





No, that's not a jr. size or women's, that's a men's size basketball!!

That looks like an orange ping pong ball next to the 215RT's....lol
RMK!'s Avatar RMK!
06:44 PM Liked: 509
post #20882 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 6,270
Joined: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
I kind of did that on purpose. If you look down at my feet I'm back a bit from the front baffle, I didn't want to make the speakers look small plus my wife took the picture and she is 5'3" so that could be a bit of the illusion as well.


You are 6'6 3/4"?? Wow! I know that conversion exactly from my high jumping days in college. My teammate and friend from then Yugoslavia is exactly 2 meters tall.

That and the fact that most meets starting height was around 2 meters. In college they never told us the heights in feet/inches so I had to learn/memorize all the metric conversions from 2.0 meters to 2.45 which is the world record. My best was 2.25.
Sorry, I'm 1.98 meters ... I round up too ...

That is some world class high jumping Carp ...
rjh65@verizon.ne's Avatar rjh65@verizon.ne
07:05 PM Liked: 16
post #20883 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 160
Joined: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
With some amplifiers and speakers, adding a significant amount of resistance can interact with the crossover or a low-pass filter in the amp to deemphasize treble a bit. Was it a long cable you tested? Most cable differences are just changes to resistence. It has to be a decent amount of difference to be audible.

Sometimes there is no difference and it's just placebo.

Either way, nothing that EQ can't fix. Not worth spending money on, unless you think the fancy looks are worth it.
They were only an 8' pair, I actually have them for another day or so. I may re-eq them to see just out of curiosity sake.
carp's Avatar carp
07:29 PM Liked: 729
post #20884 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 6,201
Joined: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
Sorry, I'm 1.98 meters ... I round up too ...

That is some world class high jumping Carp ...

Thanks man, I miss having ups.

So you really can see the tops of your speakers! I cannot.
rjh65@verizon.ne's Avatar rjh65@verizon.ne
07:31 PM Liked: 16
post #20885 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 160
Joined: May 2007
Many thanks to all for your great feedback in regards to the cable question. I was curious since JTR speakers are so highly efficient that, if there was a difference to be had with a cable upgrade i would certainly be willing to do it. Again, I am in the research phase before making the final decision to try the 215RT's.
GIEGAR's Avatar GIEGAR
07:36 PM Liked: 360
post #20886 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 1,284
Joined: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
Sorry, I'm 1.98 meters ... I round up too ...

That is some world class high jumping Carp ...
You can say that again!

I don't know when college was for you Carp, but 2.25 would have put you in the top 10 of the Beijing Olympics final. (I looked it up.) You are very modest.
RMK!'s Avatar RMK!
07:39 PM Liked: 509
post #20887 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 6,270
Joined: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
Thanks man, I miss having ups.

So you really can see the tops of your speakers! I cannot.
Yep, not much to see though ...

I know you have a 2 channel priority but I'm wondering about your timbre matching issue with the 212 center. In theory, it should be better than the 212-228 combination that you liked as 212-215 share the same CD. I'm thinking it is the height differential of the CD's that is the cause. Your thoughts?
rjh65@verizon.ne's Avatar rjh65@verizon.ne
07:51 PM Liked: 16
post #20888 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 160
Joined: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
Just finished this, GREAT read thank you!
carp's Avatar carp
09:09 PM Liked: 729
post #20889 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 6,201
Joined: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIEGAR View Post
You can say that again!

I don't know when college was for you Carp, but 2.25 would have put you in the top 10 of the Beijing Olympics final. (I looked it up.) You are very modest.

Thanks man, but not really as good as it sounds since I knew so many guys that went higher. A friend and competitor of mine at K-State (I went to Nebraska) went to the Olympics in 96, pretty damn cool. He jumped 1.5 inches higher than me but that's a lot at that level.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
Yep, not much to see though ...

I know you have a 2 channel priority but I'm wondering about your timbre matching issue with the 212 center. In theory, it should be better than the 212-228 combination that you liked as 212-215 share the same CD. I'm thinking it is the height differential of the CD's that is the cause. Your thoughts?

True - I think you are right about the CD height difference.

Still I swear the highs sound different (better - which says a lot since I love the highs on the 212) with the 215's. Is that possible since they have the same CD?
GIEGAR's Avatar GIEGAR
09:55 PM Liked: 360
post #20890 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 1,284
Joined: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjh65@verizon.ne View Post
Just finished this, GREAT read thank you!

It is a great read. You may find this calculator from the car audio world good to work with. It also allows you play around with input combinations to see the effect on the various outputs. Beyond selecting at least the minimum gauge for your situation, there's nothing else to worry about.

Speaker Wire Calculator

(Credit to @Bill Fitzmaurice for the link.)
lbrown105's Avatar lbrown105
10:29 PM Liked: 161
post #20891 of 28172
06-30-2014 | Posts: 1,140
Joined: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIEGAR View Post
It is a great read. You may find this calculator from the car audio world good to work with. It also allows you play around with input combinations to see the effect on the various outputs. Beyond selecting at least the minimum gauge for your situation, there's nothing else to worry about.

Speaker Wire Calculator

(Credit to @Bill Fitzmaurice for the link.)
I wonder how critical the standard 300 circular mils per amp is? I just realized I am running about 40ft of 12 gauge wire to my LCR and the loss is minimal (.27 dB) but a warning pops up for larger wire if running in wall or under carpet for power greater 1900 watts. My LG puts out 2100 watts per channel into 4 ohms. Is this a non-issue considering we are talking about program power not constant wattage?
GIEGAR's Avatar GIEGAR
01:24 AM Liked: 360
post #20892 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 1,284
Joined: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbrown105 View Post
I wonder how critical the standard 300 circular mils per amp is? I just realized I am running about 40ft of 12 gauge wire to my LCR and the loss is minimal (.27 dB) but a warning pops up for larger wire if running in wall or under carpet for power greater 1900 watts. My LG puts out 2100 watts per channel into 4 ohms. Is this a non-issue considering we are talking about program power not constant wattage?
I'm not sure. The calculator specifically asks for: Rated power output into load impedance below. I guess in an auto situation they assume the worst case scenario: If you've got 'em - you smoke 'em. (Hang on... that's you blokes!! ) On the other hand, 1900W into a 101dB speaker is theoretically 134dBSPL @ 1m, so I guess you'd have to ask how often and how long you could sustain that for, especially indoors.

I mentioned Bill in my post, so perhaps he'll drop in.
Gorilla83's Avatar Gorilla83
05:53 AM Liked: 460
post #20893 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 3,646
Joined: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
True - I think you are right about the CD height difference.

Still I swear the highs sound different (better - which says a lot since I love the highs on the 212) with the 215's. Is that possible since they have the same CD?
Seems like enough justification for an AT screen to me?
SOWK's Avatar SOWK
07:56 AM Liked: 129
post #20894 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 4,112
Joined: Dec 2004
I'm surprised he didn't do it after looking at RMK's setup.

I'll have to convince him once I post my pictures on July 15th.
RMK!'s Avatar RMK!
08:25 AM Liked: 509
post #20895 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 6,270
Joined: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOWK View Post
I'm surprised he didn't do it after looking at RMK's setup.

I'll have to convince him once I post my pictures on July 15th.
I think the issue is that Carp is concerned that he doesn't have the space for an AT screen as the room is currently configured. Being under 10' from a 144" screen would be pretty close. Might require Dramamine.
SOWK's Avatar SOWK
08:44 AM Liked: 129
post #20896 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 4,112
Joined: Dec 2004
Or 4K projection and 4K sources.
carp's Avatar carp
10:12 AM Liked: 729
post #20897 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 6,201
Joined: Aug 2003
There is that, but I could go with a smaller AT screen. The real issue is that the picture is so bright and vivid as is on my painted wall. I've seen plenty of AT setups now and I know I would lose a lot of brightness unless I upgrade my projector which I can't afford to do right now.

I'm still amazed how good a wall using specific paint can look even with an entry level projector and I'm nervous about losing that.

So, my long term plan is to someday upgrade both at the same time - projector and AT screen. However, I don't want to mess with that until 4K content is the norm (or at least somewhat available) so it could be a very long time which is also fine because I've spent way too much money on the audio side of things since 2010.
dgage's Avatar dgage
10:33 AM Liked: 409
post #20898 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 2,083
Joined: Dec 2003
It wouldn't surprise me if the 212 and 215 have slightly different voicing via the crossover and different horn. Is the 215RM an option? This has me concerned as I can't fit the 215RM as a center and wouldnt want slightly different voicing.
Reefdvr27's Avatar Reefdvr27
10:47 AM Liked: 641
post #20899 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 3,472
Joined: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgage View Post
It wouldn't surprise me if the 212 and 215 have slightly different voicing via the crossover and different horn. Is the 215RM an option? This has me concerned as I can't fit the 215RM as a center and wouldnt want slightly different voicing.
Custom center.
N8DOGG's Avatar N8DOGG
10:50 AM Liked: 405
post #20900 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 6,114
Joined: Dec 2003
You guys are making too big of a deal over the different speakers. Even though the horns are different, at the end of the day, it's the same driver and used in pretty much the same manner as the 212's. So unless anyone has actually heard the 215's being used with a 212 or similar, their opinion is moot.
I'd bet once Carp gets over " OMG they are different" and just enjoys it all, it will be an after though in a day or 2. The "what if's" are the cancer of the audio world, it just constantly eats at you. I used to be worried about it all but in the last year or so, I've come to realize that it's pointless to worry about such trivial things and just enjoy.

Totally flat response etc is only to impress others on forums, I've never been in a HT that was totally flat that I've enjoyed at all. The sound is boring and stale IMO. After setting up countless systems, not one person... ever.... has had me do the system flat once they've heard how much fun it can really be. I know there will always be the " the way the film was intended to sound" garbage that people cling to but at the end of the day, who gives a flying crap lol.
Goalline's Avatar Goalline
11:01 AM Liked: 25
post #20901 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 164
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post

That and the fact that most meets starting height was around 2 meters. In college they never told us the heights in feet/inches so I had to learn/memorize all the metric conversions from 2.0 meters to 2.45 which is the world record. My best was 2.25.
Wow, what a jumper you were, particularly for a "short" guy.
carp's Avatar carp
11:21 AM Liked: 729
post #20902 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 6,201
Joined: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goalline View Post
Wow, what a jumper you were, particularly for a "short" guy.
Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post
I'd bet once Carp gets over " OMG they are different" and just enjoys it all, it will be an after though in a day or 2. .

Nathan is right, and ^ is another reason why I'm not worried about going AT right away.

However, my lacking surrounds/and or their position is something that will have to be addressed at some point.
carp's Avatar carp
11:22 AM Liked: 729
post #20903 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 6,201
Joined: Aug 2003
But they do sound different!!
dgage's Avatar dgage
11:31 AM Liked: 409
post #20904 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 2,083
Joined: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
But they do sound different!!
Coach and I will be able to compare the 212s to the 215RT and 215RM soon enough.
RMK!'s Avatar RMK!
11:34 AM Liked: 509
post #20905 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 6,270
Joined: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
But they do sound different!!
Nate is right but ... an inexpensive test would be to put the 212 in the vertical orientation and see if you still notice a difference.
raynist's Avatar raynist
11:54 AM Liked: 414
post #20906 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 1,782
Joined: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
Nate is right but ... an inexpensive test would be to put the 212 in the vertical orientation and see if you still notice a difference.
I noticed a difference when I placed my 228 center vertically. Eventually I will have an AT screen, for now I keep my 228 upright on the floor angled up a bit.

Midbass seemed to improve doing this. Never took a measurement though....
COACH2369's Avatar COACH2369
11:55 AM Liked: 92
post #20907 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 1,750
Joined: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgage View Post
Coach and I will be able to compare the 212s to the 215RT and 215RM soon enough.
Should be fun....not as much fun as getting them into the room.
N8DOGG's Avatar N8DOGG
12:48 PM Liked: 405
post #20908 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 6,114
Joined: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
But they do sound different!!
I agree they do sound slightly different but IMO, it's more of the way the of the bass, not the CD. the 215 sounds fuller than the 212. Having it on it's side does make it also sound a bit more different. It's just a compromise that you have to deal with until the time you go to a AT screen.

Believe me, you won't even notice it in a few days once the ocd subsides
craig john's Avatar craig john
02:25 PM Liked: 407
post #20909 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 10,463
Joined: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post
I agree they do sound slightly different but IMO, it's more of the way the of the bass, not the CD. the 215 sounds fuller than the 212. Having it on it's side does make it also sound a bit more different. It's just a compromise that you have to deal with until the time you go to a AT screen.

Believe me, you won't even notice it in a few days once the ocd subsides
I hope that's how it works out for Carp. However, in my own experience, whenever I've "heard" an imperfection in my system, I can't "unhear" it. In fact, the more I listen, the more I hear the imperfection, and the more it distracts and annoys me.

I remember when I had a horizontal CC mounted below my screen. I was in blissful heaven... until I went to pepar's place and heard his system with an AT screen and 3rd identical speaker behind the screen. I came back home and immediately "heard" my CC below the screen. From that point on, I could hardly enjoy my system. Voices originated from below the screen instead of locking up with the on-screen image. I found myself slouching down in my chair, trying to get the CC speaker closer to ear level, and to the "correct" level for lock-up with the visual image. In addition, sounds that "panned" across the front soundstage changed pitch and position throughout the pan. That was probably the thing I found most distracting. It negatively impacted my enjoyment of my system. I was focusing on the imperfection, and I was distracted from the actual viewing of the movie... until I replaced the screen with an AT screen, and the CC with an identical, vertical speaker.

The same thing happened with my old Sony HS51 projector. It had a dynamic iris, and I thought it looked fine... until someone, (I think it was pepar again), who pointed out the "black bars" on a 2.35:1 movie pulsing from black to gray as the average light levels of the image changed. Once he pointed it out, and I could see it, I could never "un-see" it. I would focus more on the black bars that I did on the image. It drove me crazy. The only way to fix the problem was to go to a 2.35:1 screen with an anamorphic lens... which is what I did. No more black bars on 2.35:1 content, and no more pulsing of those black bars.

As I said, I hope Carp gets to the point where he can ignore the difference in sound between his L/R's and his CC. It will be much better for him if he can. Myself... I could never do that.

Craig
N8DOGG's Avatar N8DOGG
02:47 PM Liked: 405
post #20910 of 28172
07-01-2014 | Posts: 6,114
Joined: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
I hope that's how it works out for Carp. However, in my own experience, whenever I've "heard" an imperfection in my system, I can't "unhear" it. In fact, the more I listen, the more I hear the imperfection, and the more it distracts and annoys me.

I remember when I had a horizontal CC mounted below my screen. I was in blissful heaven... until I went to pepar's place and heard his system with an AT screen and 3rd identical speaker behind the screen. I came back home and immediately "heard" my CC below the screen. From that point on, I could hardly enjoy my system. Voices originated from below the screen instead of locking up with the on-screen image. I found myself slouching down in my chair, trying to get the CC speaker closer to ear level, and to the "correct" level for lock-up with the visual image. In addition, sounds that "panned" across the front soundstage changed pitch and position throughout the pan. That was probably the thing I found most distracting. It negatively impacted my enjoyment of my system. I was focusing on the imperfection, and I was distracted from the actual viewing of the movie... until I replaced the screen with an AT screen, and the CC with an identical, vertical speaker.

The same thing happened with my old Sony HS51 projector. It had a dynamic iris, and I thought it looked fine... until someone, (I think it was pepar again), who pointed out the "black bars" on a 2.35:1 movie pulsing from black to gray as the average light levels of the image changed. Once he pointed it out, and I could see it, I could never "un-see" it. I would focus more on the black bars that I did on the image. It drove me crazy. The only way to fix the problem was to go to a 2.35:1 screen with an anamorphic lens... which is what I did. No more black bars on 2.35:1 content, and no more pulsing of those black bars.

As I said, I hope Carp gets to the point where he can ignore the difference in sound between his L/R's and his CC. It will be much better for him if he can. Myself... I could never do that.

Craig
So, you have to keep up with the Jones.....
Tags: 215RT , 228ht , captivator , Jtr , Jtr Noesis 212ht 212ht Lp

Gear in this thread - 215RT by PriceGrabber.com
Reply Speakers

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3